Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:07:55 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Remko Lodder <remko@elvandar.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/nvclock/files patch-src::Makefile.in Message-ID: <20100911100755.GC98291@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <74745E4D-B9A7-4ABC-A13C-6D6B4ECC1130@elvandar.org> References: <201009110907.o8B97h9o041593@repoman.freebsd.org> <2FE6FEAD-AEC7-47B3-BF09-7058908F3D42@elvandar.org> <20100911095133.GA98291@FreeBSD.org> <74745E4D-B9A7-4ABC-A13C-6D6B4ECC1130@elvandar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:55:50AM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote: > On Sep 11, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:33:20AM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote: > >> We refer to this as > >> > >> PR: <category>/<number> > > > > In most cases, yes, absolutely, but: > > > > The committed patch was not from the PR; submitter suggested marking the > > port as jobs-unsafe (and I hate marking ports unsafe or broken instead of > > properly fixing them). Technically, I could have omitted any attribution > > whatsoever, but decided to do it nonetheless (making clear that commit > > merely closes the PR, not taking any code/idea from it). Thanks for > > asking though. > > no, when refering to a PR we always do that. > > We can tell in the changelog itself that the PR had not been used itself. Frankly speaking, I was reluctant to use non-canonical tag form, as much as I hate doing it. I spent about several minutes thinking of proper and clear text for explanation of the role of the PR, but simple "make jobs unsafeness report" just occurred to me this very moment. :-( Sorry I did not put enough thinking into it. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100911100755.GC98291>